Vatican II “teaches” EX ECC. NUL. SAL. But they distort it to the point where it is completely different. They include Non Catholics as members of the Body of Christ through baptism. So it’s not that V2 ignores EENS, but rather they ignore no salvation outside of the faith. Viz., they say that all are made members through baptism and faith is not necessary. They think even a Hindu who is baptized can be called Christian just because he is baptized, but they don’t mention that in V2 because it sounds ridiculous.
Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that schismatic and non-Catholic sects are a “means of salvation.” This heresy is based on the new ecclesiology stated in Lumen Gentium in which it states that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church in its “fullness”, but it also is present in schismatic and non-Catholic sects in an “imperfect” manner, thus making a distinction between the “Church of Christ” and the Catholic Church.
These non-Catholic churches are therefore truly “particular churches” which make up, together with the Roman Catholic Church, the one Church of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is in “partial communion” with these non-Catholic churches, to the extent that they have elements of the Church of Christ, such as valid sacraments and true doctrines. These non-Catholic Churches are then “means of salvation” to the extent that they preserve the genuine elements of the Church of Christ.
This has never been taught in the history of Catholicism and in fact has been condemned many times. The traditional ecclesiology is that there is but one Church of Christ, and it is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. The new ecclesiology reduces the Church of Christ to an amalgam of contradicting churches with conflicting doctrines, morals, worship, disciplines and government.
The Logical Body of Christ is Jesus conceived by The Power of The Holy Spirit Family becoming again in all One God, in all generalizations, I believe.
Mary’s role is to carry and give birth from the Father through the Immaculate Conception for the divine Son of God from Holy Spirit Incorruption through the Immaculate flesh of The New Eve for the Virgin Birth of Jesus in The New Adam becoming the Christ in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being in all generalizations, I believe.
The Church is the Logical New Eve, and His Passion. The New Eve is the transformed Body of Christ Baptized from the spirit through the souls of all in the flesh for Jesus becoming in the New Adam through The Christ in all becoming in One Body of Our Own Personal Christ to be able to become from death through resurrection for all becoming again glorified and transfigured in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, to me, I believe.
To me, literally, faithfully all mankind is From created failed in two natures, spirit and life is Transformed immortal becoming from the Sanctified Baptized New Eve we become from Sacrifice through Penance forgiven from the words of Absolution in Confession re-Sanctified and Confirmed in the Will of The Father becoming again in Communion with Him in all immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured in One Holy Family One God in being seems most possible.
So true, Literalman, the two Sacraments from death to life are Baptism in the New Eve and Penance and forgiven through the New Adam becoming the Christ from Sacrifice through Penance in all re-Sanctified mankind becoming again One Family in all generalizations.
Logically Baptism transforms all becoming the New Eve in immortality becoming through the New Adam in Holy Spirit incorruption from Sacrifice through Penance forgiven becoming again in all One Holy Spirit Family One God in being. I believe.
I was part of another church group previously who also believed that “outside OUR church, no salvation”.
Not an uncommon occurence in the religious landscape. I do not think that it holds biblically however. I think first of all about when Jesus says, “whoever is not against us is for us”, addressing the situation of a man driving out a demon in Jesus own name. I think that verse lends credit to the idea, that Jesus is the God of whosoever chooses him, rather than being church-specific. Considering the context of Luke 9:46-50 which is about how to be the greatest in Jesus kingdom, I find this interpretation reliable. You cannot even strive to be the greatest in the catholic church, because that is not the only group of people belonging to Jesus.
Amen! And I agree. As @nuncincipio pointed out in Second John that "anyone who is so progressive as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (1 Jn 2:22–23; 4:2; 5:5–6), do not receive him in your house (in our Church, domestic and universal) or even greet him (I presume with the brotherly kiss).
There is nothing you can think of in Vatican I that might have changes from prior to Vatican I?
The Catholic Church still believes this today. When someone is Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they become a member of Christ’s body, the church.
Are there early documents that say that one must be Baptized by a Bishop or a Priest? I’m genuinely asking. Last Lent I started reading the Early Church Councils and I cannot recall (I’ll have to check my notes).
Salvific grace flows from Christ’s side and through the Apostolic Church that Christ founded. So, in a sense, there is no Salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church.
And though one can cut themselves off from the ongoing Life that Christ offers us in these gifts which He instituted, it does not mean that they have rejected Christ outright. And as we see while Christ is on the Cross, a man who comes to believe in Him, but has not been Baptized, is saved. Does Vatican I teach that one can be saved not having been Baptized if one has the desire to be with Christ, but is unable to be Baptized? I’m asking out of ignorance.
I have not read either of these two documents. I guess I have homework to do : ) I cannot just take your word that these documents are saying what you claim they do.
Now can you give me an example of how Vatican I has changed from prior to Vatican I?
Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and to bind, but also the responsibility to protect and to defend the Apostolic teachings passed onto them. One should not be at the expense of the other. Do you believe this to be true?
Strictly speaking, Yes. However, when the thief on the Cross who came to believe that Jesus is God, might not have fully understood the Holy Trinity. And Sacred Scripture does not say if Jesus gave the man Catechesis while they were grasping for another breath.
Jesus established norms, but Jesus can save whomever He wants. We can bicker about who is saved and who is not saved, but truly none of us really knows. What we do know is that our Lord gave the faithful instructions on how to grow in Him. Where some view these gifts as works of men, we see as Christ working in us. And just as we know that faith without works is dead, so too is work without faith.
It is not only baptism but baptism+faith that makes someone a member of the Church, as explained in Pius XII’s Mystici Coporis, #22 and #23. And made clear in Florence Sess. 11 as dogma. It is called “true and necessary” which clearly shows it is extraordinarily dogmatic (infallible).
The baptism of the Spirit was instituted in Matthew 28:19 when He said “go therefore and baptize…etc.”. This was when he was about to ascend into heaven. After this, baptism became absolutely necessary for salvation. And at that time in the cross, positive assent and faith in the Trinity was not yet absolutely necessary since He didn’t yet institute baptism of the Spirit.
I believe Baptism is true and necessary. Baptism is regenerative (truly).
Jesus makes it clear in John 3:5 that Baptism is necessary, “Truly, truly, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”
Now, we do not know if the thief on the cross was previously Baptized, but I would bet that he wasn’t (speculation on my part). I do not know if Vatican I taught a Baptism of desire, but it makes logical sense to me that Christ would not deny anyone who comes to him in their dying hour, even if unable to be formally Baptized.
Now this does not mean that what some Protestants have done by making the exception the norm is justified. It isn’t. It is in grave error that they do this.
Again, baptism was not inspired until right before the ascension. Some 42 days after the crucifixion. The thief did not need to be baptized at that time because baptismal regeneration was not yet made necessary
I see your point and I think it is a valid one. Likewise, the “Last Supper” was not the first Eucharist then, but rather a lead-up to the fulfillment of the Passover. Is this your understanding as well?
This is confusing. If this is the case, then your argument for Baptism no longer makes sense to me.
You are telling me that Baptisms prior to Christ’s Passion were not regenerative, but the Last Supper was transubstantiated. Can you expand on this?
It would seem to me that either both were instituted prior to Christ’s death or neither were valid prior to our Lord’s death and Resurrection, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the signs of the old Covenant.
Baptisms prior to the institution were baptism of penance, also called the “baptism of John”. This is not baptismal regeneration of the Spirit. These are merely signs of the future baptism of the Spirit. The fulfillment of the New Testament is in the Resurrection.
So the NT was not complete until the resurrection. Prior to that, it was still being added to. And then prior to the Death it was still Old Testament. So the apostles received baptism and confirmation at the same time, as showed above in Acts of the Apostles chapter 1. You can read Matthew 3 to see how the baptism of John is different than that of the Spirit.
Fair enough, but how then do you explain Christ giving His body at the Last Supper, when He had not yet given it? I know what I want to say, but I’d like you to explain it to me. And perhaps @DLW would also like to expand on any of the points made in this thread. Thanks : )